h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all responce for non eg stuff


and yes, I admitt, I get grumpy at some people (ie the guy who posted some rubbish then said it was in the spirt of the hitchhiker's guide)


but there are people who post something fun / interesting that is no way EG - like a poem or something -


this needs a differnet repsonce for rubbish non-science and personal theories, where we are not just dealing with somebody who has skipped over the rules, but has their own odd belives about how the world works.

Sorry Gnomon, that I posted that note in relation to the wrong thread, but you are wrong. PR is precisely about asking the opinions of the other researchers.

Yes, you're right.

NP, my friend.

I thank all those who welcomed my entry into h2g2. I also appreciate all those who spared their time and effort to comment on my article. However, I wish the criticisms were more on scientific matter rather than on my personal traits.

Kepler’s first law of planetary motion states that ‘The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with sun at a focus’ (Wikipedia). Ellipse is a closed geometrical figure. The law does not say anything about the shape of a satellite’s orbital path. Probably, satellites were not considered during formulation of these laws. Or else, knowing that he moon is orbiting about the moving earth, they were intentionally excluded. Kepler’s laws of planetary motion were formulated to account for the motion of planets around the (assumed) static sun. We must consider that, when ‘Kepler’ formed his ‘laws on planetary motions’ even the heliocentric nature of the solar system was not recognized, let alone a moving sun. All cosmic bodies were considered to orbit around a static earth.

Kepler’s laws on planetary motions are valid only on condition that his first law is true, which requires the planet to orbit around its central body in elliptical (closed geometrical) path. The moment astronomers realized that the sun (central body) is a moving object, Kepler’s laws became invalid. Because, no free body can orbit around another moving body in a closed geometrical path. Now, since we now know that the sun is a moving body, we should acknowledge the true shape of a planetary orbital path as ‘wavy about a central body’ instead of ‘circular/elliptical around a central body’.

I will be grateful if ‘Gnomon’ could give me references to few articles/books in popular literature, text books, atlases, theory books, thesis or internet sites which show the shape of planetary orbits as wavy about their central bodies. It is obvious that my search for them was faulty and I missed such widely known information. Astronomers may privately agree to the suggestion of wavy orbital paths, but they do not wish to make such public comment. May be I am wrong in suggesting that what ‘every astronomer knows as a fact’ is not publicized in any form. If a person shakes his head long enough, the whole universe may appear to be shaking to him. ‘Gnomon’ would say the most logical way for him, to treat such appearance, is by formulating a law on shaky universe and continuously defend that law by equally imaginative theories.

Straight-line motion of a golf ball on a moving ship’s deck is apparent and within the small reference frame of the ship. Due to their mechanical linkage, the golf ball has certain parameters of ship’s motion already embedded in it. It is its relative motion with respect to the ship that appears to be in straight line. Its real motion is much more complex. Only real motions can be used in an absolute reference frame. However, for mathematical treatments in smaller reference frames, we get accurate results by using relative motions. This is because we ignore parameters of real motions, both in the input functions and in the result. This is the practical and simpler method. This does not make it the most logical method.

Since there is no mechanical link between a planetary body and its central body, parameters of their motions cannot be transferred to each other. Their real motions (other than for gravitational effects) remain independent of each other and are related only in absolute reference frame. For practical purposes, we use representations of these motions (in relation to each other) in mathematics to predict events (in most cases) accurately. To insist such representations (apparent orbital paths) are true motions is to bend the truth a bit.

In mathematics, we often split actions/entities into components to make the treatments simpler. To find the center of gravity of an odd-shaped object, we may consider it as a combination of many regular shaped bodies. This does not mean that there are as many bodies present. All representations used in mathematics are symbolic and they may not always correspond to reality.

In mathematics, centers of mass and gravity are imaginary points to represent wider area of actions, to make explanations simpler. There are created in our minds and are needed to simplify mathematical treatments. Real actions do not take place on or about these points. Take the case of an odd-shaped body, whose center of gravity falls outside the body. You can neither apply a force on the body through this point nor does the body have any direct link to the point. Hence, it is not that a body moves about its center of mass but the center of mass is created by us to understand the motion.

Mathematics is often a very good tool to understand the nature but it is not right to insist that the nature should always work according to the mathematics.

matterdoc

Hi Matterdoc. Try looking up Newton's "Principle of Relativity", which explains why you don't have to go to the trouble of considering the wavy lines.

But whether you consider them or not, you will still get the same answers, except that the wavy lines method is much, much harder to work out.

I think the problem here is this:

"This is the practical and simpler method. This does not make it the most logical method."

You think it does not make it the most logical method. All the rest of the world thinks it does.

Everyone knows the Earth orbits around the Sun and it's certainly no secret that the Sun orbits around the centre of the Galaxy. See Wikipedia "Earth's Orbit". The Galaxy itself is moving with respect to other nearby galaxies, although it doesn't appear to be orbiting around anything as far as we know. The Earth orbits around the Sun in an elliptical orbit with respect to the Sun. The Sun orbits around the centre of the galaxy in an elliptical orbit with respect to the galaxy.

In the frame of reference of the Sun, the Earth's orbit is an ellipse. In the frame of reference of the Galaxy, it is not. But it is ridiculous to say that the frame of reference of the galaxy is the true one, because Einstein showed that any frame of reference is equally valid. So you pick the one which gives the simplest results. For observing the stars, it is often simplest to pick the frame of reference where the Earth is the centre and the Sun orbits around it. This makes many of the calculations a lot easier.

I personally don't think that an entry on orbits that doesn't mention Einstein is not worth letting into the edited guide.

I think matterdoc has elvised. Should this Entry be sent back to their personal space?

I think so, yes, but you probably better await the seconding of another Scout

Thanks GB! One will be along shortly no doubt

Yes, I agree, back to entry. Not really suitable for Flea Market.

Righty-ho. Thanks Mala. It's on the list.

If the fact that ‘shapes of planetary orbital paths are wavy about central body’s path’ is known to every astronomer, why it is not mentioned in any text books or in contemporary literature, available to undergraduates or general public. It can also be found that astronomers failing to provide logical explanations to many other cosmological facts only because they are adamant to stick to their current beliefs of planetary (elliptical) orbital paths around central bodies.

Searching many probable places, I could find mainly only two types of explanations for planetary orbital paths. Most literature explains planetary orbits as circular/elliptical paths around their central bodies. Few others try to explain a planetary body’s and its central body’s orbits as circular/elliptical paths around a common point in space called ‘Barry center’.

In either case, orbital paths are always mentioned as geometrically closed figures. In the first case, it is essential for the central body to be steady without translational motion. This is achieved by taking the central body as reference. All parameters of planet’s motion are correspondingly reduced to obtain an imaginary planetary orbital path around (assumed) static central body. All effects of planetary body’s path due to now-removed motion are ignored. How does this become ‘the most logical method’? It may be simpler and suitable for certain purposes (like: predicting relative positions).

In the second case, I think, it will be very painful for a central body in a multi-planetary system to orbit simultaneously around many ‘Barry centers’ situated at different places in space.

Irrationality of these arguments is covered up under the cloak of ‘frame of reference’. Why is it sinful to use a reference outside the planetary system and see real shape of planetary orbital paths? To a common man, a true wavy path will not be more complicated than an unreal elliptical path. However, it may not be easy to change established and widely used conventions of elliptical orbital paths. Least what astronomers can do is to base their analyses of orbital paths on their wavy nature.

Treating motions in terms of their "illusory and apparent motions" is only as logical way as the explanations to infants about storks bringing the babies. Relative considerations may be very useful in case of small bodies of few Kg of matter, moving at relatively very small speeds. Because differences they might make on various parameters of a body and its motion are extremely small to be noticed or regarded. This will not give us license to assume such differences do not exist, where huge bodies moving at very high speeds are considered. Although number of cosmic bodies may be grouped into a system of bodies for mathematical considerations, it should be born in mind that each cosmic body has its individual existence and identity in space. Hence, true parameters of any one body can be understood only when it is referred to an absolute reference in space.

Contemporary (Kepler’s) laws on planetary motion was derived from observations of relative positions of sun and few of its planets. Intent and purpose of these laws are to find and predict relative positions of planets about the sun. Without question, these laws fulfill there purpose admirably and they should be used only for these purposes.

However, gradually in the course of development of cosmology, planetary laws came to be (mis)used routinely for most purposes related to planetary orbital motions. This is plainly an unfair exploitation of these laws. This is the reason why it required elaborate (books of about 300 pages) mathematical exercises – Theory of moon’s motions or lunar theory – to describe moon’s orbital motion. Such misuse of ‘laws on planetary motion’, have created many mysteries in cosmology and illogical explanations to sustain them.

Trying to explain cosmological facts on the basis of present belief of geometrically closed planetary orbital paths around a central body has caused many mysteries and vagueness (few of which are mentioned below). In order to maintain and perpetuate these ambiguities, it is essential to oppose and destroy any logical explanation from developing and gaining popularity.

1. It is a mystery why all planets and satellites in a planetary system move in (almost) same plane and in the same angular direction about a central body.
2. It is a mystery why all planets, satellites and their central body in a planetary system spin in (almost) the same plane, even if some of them spin in retrograde fashion. Precessions of spinning bodies are ignored here.
3. Random distribution of planets and satellites in a planetary system is a mystery. Size, matter content, matter density, linear speed or their combinations do not seem to affect order of their distribution.
4. Development and sustenance of planetary spin motion has no logical explanation.
5. It is a mystery why ocean tides leads or lags local meridian at random.
6. Artificial satellites, leaving a planetary system appears to have increased gravitational attraction towards the central body.
7. Artificial satellites seem to show undue and random accelerations or decelerations during their flyby with respect to a planet.
8. Origin of planets and satellites in a planetary system is still a mystery.

If ‘wavy’ natures of planetary orbital paths are considered, none the above will remain a mystery anymore. You may object to my opinions or even delete this post. It will be only because I stated something against your current beliefs and not due to what I am saying is not true. Only if you can spare few minutes to think about the basics of mechanical motion, it will be very easy to follow my reasoning. Ref: http://vixra.org/abs/1008.0010

I've looked through your comments before, matterdoc, and the problem is that you don't understand the subject, not that astronomers are hiding things.

If you read books on astronomy, or even look on Wikipedia, the answers to all your questions are there. Many of them were solved in the 19th Century, and the rest were all figured out in the 20th Century.

Please don't state "It's a mystery" when what you mean is "It is a mystery to me".

I think you'd learn a lot more if you asked questions rather than stating "facts" which are untrue.

If you want to find out the answers to questions such as why the planets are all (more-or-less) in the same plane, why not go to the Science Explained forum, where there are plenty of people who understand these things and can explain them to you?

Don't be put off by the forum's name "SEx" - that is just short for "Science Explained".

A4108330